Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

I am interested to learn whom these drop shop kiddies in the counties of England are ? Surely you cannot be inferring as you did recently that my English Chess Company are drop shop kiddies, especially in the light that Shelby Lorhman told you quite clearly we have been supplying his American Chess Equipment and the Rochester Chess store for over 10 years to mention just a few major companies. Just these two companies order in massive volume, do you think Alan, we "drop ship" for example 30,000 sets to them in container loads from our China office/manufacturing hub .....Or do you think the London store is a drop shop kiddies store also ? Or how about my Uncles manufacturing hub in Italy, are they drops ship kiddies also ? you need a realty check Alan and accept in your recent assault on me personally you have failed to prove anything other than your incredulous deep rooted despise for the likes of myself and Frank C.  Your very essence is anti establishment, you hate capitalism and you refer to the " sweat shops" of India when referencing the manufacturing of mine and other chess companies. Obviously you are dead set on your continuance to take any opportunity to post negatively whenever the chance may appear, now you have Charles trying it on, so why not team up with him and have the "teamster" spirit in numbers. 

 

Charles, your comment beggars belief, but you came here upsetting the apple cart, and guess what? you're doing it again....it is becoming very very boring. 

I still find it hard to believe in the value of a chess design copyright, so to speak. The point was made earlier on the thread but if all sets are derivatives of eachother in a certain way, then...? However, if a manufacturer promises to exclusively sell a design to one person and then sells it to another behind the first one's back, then that is simply bad ethics on the manufacturer's part. I really don't see why Charles is guilty of anything here, except getting a good deal on a reproduction that is resold for way too much. The manufacturer should have said no.

You are quite right in some respects as the Staunton design is Public Domain, however that does not necessarily mean a chess set design cannot be copyright protected as intellectual property. For example, this set below was designed by my very good friend artist and designer Avtarjeet Dhanjal and this set is his intellectual property. 

and you are right when you say the manufacturer is at fault as their actions were unethical to say the least, however Charles went direct to this manufacturer with a hustle of $$$$ to make Franks set but with a slight modification. Instead of acknowledging his actions he decided to muddy the waters and dig the dirt as they say..... He ought to simply enjoy his set and move on.  

As I understand it, copyright to the design would be now defunct as has been pointed out. Of course the Jaques name is still protected in law.

That the Staunton name can now be used by all and sundry is as I said above an accident of history, Alex Hammond being the one who took an Uhlig bone set into court claiming it pre-dated the Jaques Staunton design. I do think he knew better and was simply prepared to perjure himself in order to help B H Wood out of a very tight spot. 

So copying Jaques old set designs is not illegal or I am sure a few people would have been sued on that basis. It is my opinion that had Jaques a stro ger more professional managment team instead of promoting from the family to CEO (nepotism is rarely a good plan) Then they could put all these other pretenders out of business in one stroke. After all who would not rather buy a stamped and genuine Jaques set at the same price as a ripoff copy made by the same Indian craftsmen?

 

Very fun. capitalism, plagiarism, chauvinism , sweat shopism . .... so many ism's.

 

No innuendo here.  As they say, if the shoe fits...  Now get off your high horse.

Can I just ask why there is so much talk here about IP rights? We are talking about copies/duplicates of other people's work, right?

Not entirely. Original designs of old sets are in the public domain and free to be copied for the most part. But if I reproduce it, I have IP rights in my copy of it because it adds value, and the added value is protectible. Simply put, anyone else is free to make their own copy of the unprotected original, but if they copy my copy, there is a problem. This is particularly evident in a project like NOJ's reproduction of the Tal set, which was done from a handful of photographs, and hundreds of blanks trying to perfect the design shown in the photographs. Anyone is free to do the same from the pictures. But if they buy a copy of NOJ's set, and copy it, or they copy the set from pictures of NOJ's set, they're taking advantage of the value NOJ added, which at least under the general principles of American IP law as I understand them, is protectible. I can't speak to EU or Indian law, or whatever international treaties may apply.

I recall from law school a quote that I'll paraphrase: "you only have those rights you can enforce." Indian manufacturers making these sets on behalf of a retailer may cede some IP rights to the retailer under the contract of production, but I would be hard pressed to believe there is any practically-achievable remedy in an international IP/breach of contract claim where the underlying "IP" is a copy or duplicate. If not a bar to a claim, even in the US the fact that the IP is a copy of an original work is not the best set of facts I can imagine..."But your Honor, that is my copy" rings a bit hollow.

As an aside, the copies show in this thread are excellent work almost universally. I have views about them as an investment, but that's not germane here.

Forty years of practicing law, JC, confirms your general proposition for the most part. I'm merely relating what an IP lawyer I consulted with about the issue told me. I can conceive and am aware of evidence that goes beyond the simple copying of a copy, but no need to rehash what's been discussed at length on other fora. There is of course even there a question of whether any expected gains would justify the certain costs of going to court.

But getting back to your proposition about rights, they're not just what judges will enforce, as much as judges and lawyers might like to think. They're also about what others will respect. And here there is good reason to respect the IP interests of a company like NOJ in undertaking the substantial development costs of reproducing a lost set. If collectors don't respect them, then the NOJs of the world won't risk the development of the next Tal set. Free riders will kill it off.

An excellent point!

Frank C. is having surgery on his back today. Let's wish him the Best of Luck in his recovery.

 Can I have my knife back when they finally get it out please.

Alan, is that you?

At the first mention of an assault with a deadly weapon, the lawyers begin to appear.

Yes James,

Not that type of lawyer. 😁

LOL. Me neither. Present company excepted.

I am reminded of the opening scenes from The Verdict, where legal has-been Paul Newman searches the obituaries while pounding down shots in a Cambridge bar, and then proceeds to express his condolences and present his business card to the grieving widow at a wake he had identified in the obits.

Hearse chasing. One step lower than ambulance chasing. All we have to do is hang around the equipment forum.

A nice small ayres repro under production 

 

and our improved 1851 antique pieces married up on the Yellow/Black Antique look chess board